Drawbacks granted on tea.

tation, went far to secure the acquiescence of the colonists. But their discontents,-met without temper or moderation,—were suddenly inflamed by a new measure, which only indirectly concerned them. To assist the half-bankrupt East India Company, in the sale of their teas, a drawback was given them, of the whole English duty, on shipments to the American plantations.1 By this concession to the East India Company, the colonists, exempted from the English duty, in fact received their teas at a lower rate than when there

was no colonial tax. The Company were also empowered to ship their teas direct from their own warehouses. A sudden stimulus was thus given to the export of the very article, which alone caused irritation and dissension. The colonists saw, or affected to see, in this measure, an artful contrivance for encouraging the consumption of taxed tea, and facilitating the further extension of colonial taxation. It was met by a daring outrage. The first tea-ships which reached Boston were the ten-ships boarded by men disguised as Mohawk Indians, and their cargoes cast into the sea." This being the crowning act of a series of provocations and insults, by which the colonists, and especially the people of Boston, had testified their resentment against the Stamp Act, the import duties, and other recent measures, the government at home regarded it with just indignation. Every one agreed

Attack upon

at Boston,

1773.

112 Geo. III. c. 60; 13 Geo. III. c. 44. The former of these Acts granted a drawback of three-fifths only.

2 Adams' Works, ii. 322; Bancroft's Hist. of the American Rev., iii. 514-541, &c.

that the rioters deserved punishment; and that reparation was due to the East India Company. But the punishment inflicted by Parliament, at the instance of Lord North, was such as to provoke revolt. Instead of demanding compensation, and attaching penalties to its refusal, the flourishing port of Bos- Boston Port ton was summarily closed: no ship could Act, 1774. lade or unlade at its quays: the trade and industry of its inhabitants were placed under an interdict. The ruin of the city was decreed: no penitence could avert its doom: but when the punishment had been suffered, and the atonement made: when Boston, humbled and contrite, had kissed the rod; and when reparation had been made to the East India Company, the king in council might, as an act of grace, remove the fatal ban.1 It was a deed of vengeance, fitter for the rude arbitrament of an eastern prince, than for the temperate equity of a free state.

of Masachu

Nor was this the only act of repression. The republican constitution of Massachusetts, Constitution cherished by the descendants of the pilgrim setts superfathers, was superseded. The council, seded. hitherto elective, was to be nominated by the crown; and the appointment of judges, magistrates, and sheriffs, was transferred from the council to the governor. And so much was the administration of justice suspected, that by another act, accused persons

1 Boston Port Act, 14 Geo. III. c. 19; Parl. Hist., xvii. 1159– 1189; Chatham Corr., iv. 342; Rockingham Mem., ii. 238-243; Bancroft's Hist., iii. 565, et seq.

2 14 Geo. III. c. 45; Parl. Hist., xvii. 1192, 1277, &c.

might be sent for trial to any other colony, or even to England.1 Troops were also despatched to overawe the turbulent people of Massachusetts.

Resistance

of the colonists.

The colonists, however, far from being intimidated by the rigours of the mother country, associated to resist them. Nor was Massachusetts left alone in its troubles. A congress of delegates from twelve of the colonies was assembled at Philadelphia, by whom the recent measures were condemned, as a violation of the rights of Englishmen. It was further agreed to suspend all imports from, and all exports to, Great Britain and her dependencies, unless the grievances of the colonies were redressed. Other threatening measures were adopted, which proved too plainly that the stubborn spirit of the colonists was not to be overcome. the words of Lord Chatham, the spirit which now resisted taxation in America, was the same spirit which formerly opposed loans, benevolences, and ship-money in England.”2

ham's con

position,

Feb. 1st,

In

In vain Lord Chatham,-appearing after his long Lord Chat- prostration,-proffered a measure of conciliatory pro- ciliation, repealing the obnoxious acts, and explicitly renouncing imperial taxation: 1775. but requiring from the colonies the grant of a revenue to the king. Such a measure might even yet have saved the colonies :3 but it was contemptuously rejected by the Lords, on the first reading.1

1 14 Geo. III. c. 39; Parl. Hist., xvii. 1199, &c.

2 Speech, Jan. 20th, 1777.-Parl. Hist., xviii. 154, n.

3 See Lord Mahon's Hist., vi. 43.

◄ Feb. 1st, 1775.-Parl. Hist., xviii. 198.

of Lord

Mr. Burke,

Lord North himself soon afterwards framed a conciliatory proposition, promising that, Propositions if the colonists should make provision for North and their own defence, and for the civil govern- Feb. 20th, ment, no imperial tax should be levied. 1775. His resolution was agreed to: but, in the present temper of the colonists, its conditions were impracticable.1 Mr. Burke also proposed other March 22nd, resolutions, similar to the scheme of Lord 1775.

Chatham, which were rejected by a large majority.2

Outbreak of

war, April

Petition to

The Americans were already ripe for rebellion, when an unhappy collision occurred at Lexington, between the royal troops and the civil the colonial militia. Blood was shed; and 19th, 1775. the people flew to arms. The war of independence was commenced. Its sad history and issue are but too well known. In vain Congress addressed a petition to the king, for redress and the king, conciliation. It received no answer. vain Lord Chatham devoted the last energies of his wasting life3 to effect a reconciliation, without renouncing the sovereignty of England. In vain the British Parliament,-humbling itself be- Overtures fore its rebellious subjects,-repealed the 1778. American tea duty, and. renounced its claims to im

In

Sept. 1st, 1775.

for peace,

1 Parl. Hist., xviii. 319; Chatham Corr., iv. 403; Gibbon's Posthumous Works, i. 490.

2 Parl. Hist., xviii. 478; Burke's Works, iii. 23.

3 Lord Chatham was completely secluded from political and social life, from the spring of 1767 to the spring of 1769; and again, from the spring of 1775 to the spring of 1777.

A A 2

perial taxation.1 In vain were parliamentary commissioners empowered to suspend the acts of which the colonists complained,-to concede every demand but that of independence,-and almost to sue for peace.2 It was too late to stay the civil war. Disasters and defeat befell the British arms, on American soil; and, at length, the independence of the colonies was recognised.3

Such were the disastrous consequences of a misunderstanding of the rights and pretensions of colonial communities, who had carried with them the laws and franchises of Englishmen. And here closes the first period in the constitutional history of the colonies.

We must now turn to another class of dependenCrown colo- cies, not originally settled by English subnies. jects, but acquired from other states by conquest or cession. To these a different rule of public law was held to apply. They were dominions of the crown, and governed, according to the laws prevailing at the time of their acquisition, by the

Free con

king in council. They were distinguished stitutions to from other settlements as crown colonies. Some of them, however, like Jamaica

crown colo

nies.

1 28 Geo. III. c. 12; Parl. Hist., xix. 762; Ann. Reg., 1778,

133.

2 28 Geo. III. c. 13.

3 No part of English history has received more copious illustration than the revolt of the American colonies. In addition to the general histories of England, the following may be consulted: Franklin's Works, Sparks' Life of Washington, Marshall's Life of Washington, Randolph's Mem. of Jefferson, Chalmers' Political Annals, Dr. Gordon's History of the American Revolution, Grahame's History of the United States, Stedman's History, Bancroft's History of the American Revolution.

4 Clark's Colonial Law, 4; Mills' Colonial Constitutions, 19, &c.